Beware: Vimeo's new default setting

[Noa Put]

Which would you think is more likely to impact on my business, low resolution of videos or those that take a bit of time to play?

Like I said earlier I am also getting buffering issues on vimeo at specific times so no matter if it's a resolution or a buffering problem, it could affect your business.

What does surprise me is when people seem to be fine with a very low resolution, as long as their films don't get stuck in constant buffering, and they seem to be ok to pay for that service even if the provider is making promises they cannot keep.

There is one provider however that never has given me any playback or buffering issues and that is IMDB, their trailers always load very fast and have good playback quality, maybe they should start their own hosting service :)

[Craig McKenna]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

That you think IMDB has "good playback quality" says everything, I think.

IMDB does have good playback, particularly when considering that it also displays footage based on a user's Internet speeds. IMDB's 'Auto' function actually leaves a lot of room after the playhead of downloaded content, as well as ensuring that the picture quality doesn't fall particularly low - it's actually quite 'HD' like, which is perhaps their secret to gaining compliments a la Noa's.

I don't know if this is fairly known, but videos sent over the Internet are broken down and sent via packets to end users. Protocols state the way in which this information is delivered, and the end user's computer sends a message to the provider's server, explaining that they have received packet A, B, C, D etc. and that protocol continues to control the way in which packets are sent to ensure that video playback is as good as possible. Some protocols willingly accept that some packets will not be received, where as other protocols work based on all packets being received. Dropping packets of data to manageable levels seems to be the way that providers are working at this present moment, but IMDB seems to be able to retain at least a 480p image, whereas Vimeo stoops to all new lows.

Vimeo's current structure is unacceptable for paying users. Vimeo should be able to match the quality of IMDB considering that this is their main forum of business and expertise, but I strongly believe that they are passing off 'user's internet speeds' as excuses for their poor servers that are unable to deliver content as well as IMDB, and - the most popular - YouTube, a website that receives much more traffic, and is able to deliver more hi-res footage for free users to the public.

I know this to be true, because I am able to stream 1080p via YouTube without a hitch, whereas I can very rarely stream at 720p via Vimeo - via the same Internet connection. Therefore, that's not to do with my speeds, but to do with their servers.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Craig McKenna

IMDB does have good playback

It does not. The quality is really poor. There is no detail in the image and the codec breaks quite often for complicated scenes, resulting in moderate to severe macroblocking.

Vimeo's current structure is unacceptable for paying users. Vimeo should be able to match the quality of IMDB considering that this is their main forum of business and expertise

If Vimeo's quality was made to match IMDB's, I would cancel my Plus subscription immediately due to the issues I have mentioned above. I have had nothing but great streaming image quality from them in my experience.

YouTube, a website that receives much more traffic, and is able to deliver more hi-res footage for free users to the public.

Yes, because it's easy once you have the money and resources of one of the largest companies in the world behind you. Why don't you just switch completely to YouTube in that case and stop worrying about what Vimeo's David (vs. YouTube's Goliath) is up to?

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Craig McKenna

IMDB does have good playback

While it's not as detailed as footage shot with a 4K camera and played back on youtube at 4k I find IMDB has found a very good balance between avoiding buffering and having good enough IQ. Their films always load very fast no matter what time of day it is and the IQ looks to good enough to play on larger pc screens and certainly looks a lot better then vimeo's low rez playback at specific times.

While I do agree with Steve that a film that takes it time to load could have a bigger impact then films played on a very low resolution when it comes to loosing a client attention when they view your films on your website this shouldn't mean that we should just accept it like it is, especially not when it's a paying service.

The problem is that there are not many better alternatives out there, I have tried Wistia but that one also had buffering issues, it's also not my internet connection because when I have playback issues on vimeo I don't have that on youtube, but even on youtube I sometimes do experience bad buffering issues but I can imagine their servers have to deal with a lot more users then vimeo so it's allready some achievement that we are even able to watch full hd, 4K viewing on youtube is more of a hit and miss, sometimes it's smooth as butter and other times it's like a slideshow.

[Steve Burkett]

Having a preference to minimalise buffering over higher resolution is by no means an endorsement that I either accept low resolution or even Vimeo itself. I have issues with Vimeo and why even though I could sometimes benefit from more than 5gbs a week upload, I don't upgrade to the next package with them. I have also complained myself over various issues.

As Vimeo is well established amongst video professionals, it feels almost like an obligation to have an account with them and it's true that as long as you have a good internet speed, playback can be quite good and professional looking. However I prefer to use YouTube more these days in part down to my own issues with Vimeo playback pre-fibre optic at my home.

Whilst an option to force playback at higher resolution would be nice with Vimeo, it's not for me an essential requirement, despite Noa's suggestion it could lead to a loss of business. Partly because my website favours YouTube for Wedding work.

[Craig McKenna]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

It does not. The quality is really poor. There is no detail in the image and the codec breaks quite often for complicated scenes, resulting in moderate to severe macroblocking.

I respectfully disagree from my own experiences. I guess you've never experienced the terrible quality Vimeo can happily output now unless you select your preferred frame rate, whilst I haven't experienced a struggle in IMDB's playback.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

If Vimeo's quality was made to match IMDB's, I would cancel my Plus subscription immediately due to the issues I have mentioned above. I have had nothing but great streaming image quality from them in my experience.

If Vimeos severs are located in the US, then maybe your streaming experience is different to ours in Europe? I know that local servers store frequently visited sites and videos in order to shorten the distance between end user and supplier - that would make sense somewhat, as every European here has a negative opinion with regards to Vimeo and have expressed the awful quality that we receive at times from them. Either that, or your connections are better than ours. I am also a Plus member, and have considered cancelling due to these issues.

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Yes, because it's easy once you have the money and resources of one of the largest companies in the world behind you. Why don't you just switch completely to YouTube in that case and stop worrying about what Vimeo's David (vs. YouTube's Goliath) is up to?

Good point. This I have considered, but this is where Vimeo triumphs in its sleek player. The only issue I have with Vimeo is playback, which was never a problem until they took away our control. It's easy when considering all of these varying opinions that our main issue is control. If we were able to decide how our clients stream our films, then I think we'd all be back to singing their praises, despite the content taking longer to stream in general in comparison to YouTube, which I do understand the reasoning behind as you have suggested.